Complain about a product or service

Safety Agency Denies It Ignored Lead in Children's Lunch Boxes

By Joseph S. Enoch
ConsumerAffairs.com

February 22, 2007

Lead Lunch Boxes • Illinois Stops Sale of Lead-Lined Lunch Bags • Lab Tests Find Lead, Other Toxins in Pet Toys Sold at Wal-Mart • California's 'Healthy Lunchbox' Promotion Backfires • Safety Agency Denies It Ignored Lead in Children's Lunch Boxes • Connecticut Bans Lead Lunch Boxes • New York Orders Lead Lunch Boxes Recalled • Dodging Recalls with eBay Resales

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is denying an Associated Press report that pointed to potential flaws in the agency's testing procedures of children's vinyl lunch boxes, despite actions by New York and Connecticut to remove the lunbh boxes from store shelves.

The AP story suggests that the CPSC may have hidden the true levels of lead found in the lunch boxes, a charge the agency denies.

A Freedom of Information Act request filed by the AP yielded 1,500 pages of documents that show the CPSC tested 60 vinyl lunch boxes in 2005 and that one in five of those boxes contained hazardous levels of lead.

Yet after the testing process, the CPSC publicly said that it found "no instances of hazardous levels."

In November 2005, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer reached an agreement with Fast Forward, LLC, a wholesaler of consumer products, to recall thousands of children's lunch boxes containing lead. Wal-Mart and Target said they had voluntarily pulled those lunch boxes from their shelves.

In December 2005, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal demanded that stores immediately stop selling the lunch boxes.

"Lead, lunch and children are a perilous mix," Blumenthal said. "The discovery of lead -- 12 times the allowable limit -- in children's lunchboxes is appalling. Our law is clear: Lead-laden lunchboxes are illegal.

CPSC's Tests

• Toy Importer to Pay Penalty for Violating Lead Paint Ban • CPSC Outlines Revamped Crib Recall Policy • Mississippi Warns Residents on Unsafe Toys • CPSC Delays Enforcement Of Testing on Kids' Products • Popular Zhu Zhu Pet May Contain Dangerous Chemicals • Report: Fewer Toys Contain Lead but Toxins Still Common • California Warns Retailers On Lead • Mattel Settles Suits Over Dangerous Toys • Target To Pay $600,000 For Violating Lead Paint Ban • Tougher Safety Requirements For Children's Products Now In Effect • Toys 'R' Us Launches Unsafe Baby Products Awareness Program • New Safety Agency Chief Pledges Greater Openness • Obama Names New Consumer Product Safety Chair, Boosts Budget • Toymaker Fined $1.1 Million For Consumer Violations • Maryland Stores Stop Selling Toys With Lead Paint • Toymakers, Craftspeople Up In Arms Over New Safety Law • Thrift Stores Protest Ban on Lead Toys • Target Launches In-Store Recall System • Do's and Don'ts of Holiday Decorating • New Jersey Finds Recalled Toys in Four Stores • Mattel Agrees to Lower Lead Paint Levels in Toys • Consumers Cautioned About Dangerous Toys • Soon-To-Be-Banned Plastic Toys Flooding the Market • Safety Agency Warns of Safety Hazards in Cribs --- • More Consumer Safety News • Recall Notices

The CPSC's scientists used two tests: One that tested the percent of lead found in dissolved chunks of the vinyl and another that tested how much lead would rub off the exterior.

With the first test, one in five contained more than the federal minimum for paints and other products. One bag contained 16 times the acceptable percentage of lead.

But the results of those tests were not used. Instead the agency focused on the second tests, which yielded lower levels of lead, especially after the scientists changed their testing protocol.

The scientists originally tested the boxes with a few swipes, but then found that if they swiped the same spot over and over, the average result was lower. The CPSC went with the average result for their final verdict.

"The more you wipe, the less lead you actually find," CPSC spokeswoman Julie Vallese explained to the AP. "With fewer wipes, we got a higher detection of lead presence. We thought more wipes was closer to reflecting how you would interact with your lunch box. It was more realistic."

Also, the scientists tested only the outside of the vinyl boxes. Vallese said this was because food in lunch boxes "may be" contained in foil or a bag.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had a different opinion when the CPSC shared its previously secret results. The FDA sent letters to the vinyl lunch box manufacturers warning them that their products may contain dangerous levels of lead.

Outside researchers have agreed with the CPSC's original results that the levels of lead in the lunch boxes are dangerous.

In reaction to the thousands of newspapers and websites that have syndicated the AP's story, the CPSC responded yesterday saying, "Recent news reports and postings on special interest group Web sites have provided information that incorrectly interprets the findings of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in testing vinyl lunchboxes."

"Under CPSC Federal law, total lead does not dictate action. Instead decisions must consider the real world interaction of child and product and the accessibility of lead from the product," the statement continues. "No matter how the data are analyzed, the staff risk assessment would still conclude that the lead exposure from vinyl lunchboxes does not present a risk to health for action under CPSC's law."

The statement also notes that "more recently, the CPSC began rulemaking to consider banning lead from children's metal jewelry."

However, as ConsumerAffairs.com has reported, the commission currently cannot proceed on any rulemaking because there are not enough commissioners to constitute a quorum. Also, in an interview last week, Vallese told ConsumerAffairs.com that the commission was still in the research phase of the children's jewelry issue and nowhere close to a rulemaking.

Report Your Experience
If you've had a bad experience -- or a good one -- with a consumer product or service, we'd like to hear about it. All complaints are reviewed by class action attorneys and are considered for publication on our site. Knowledge is power! Help spread the word. File your consumer report now.

Follow us on Twitter.

Back to the top |